Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

[adymond]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

So, by the standards of the pro-lifers' "Brady Bunch", the so-called human life that may be formed at conception is more the property of, and choice to be furthered by, their moral high-ground than those who create it?

So, by transitive property, any issue relating to child-rearing should also be decided by popular vote... I'll concede there. You force me to not "kill" my unwanted "child-to-be", and I'll tell you how to avoid pathetically raising your "non-aborts":

1) No home-schooling. You're raising fools who'll look to mommy and daddy when they can't hack it. (Or the other angle that you're so dreadfully self-fulfilling that you need your non-aborts' worship to feel worthwhile.)

2) Place them in private schools. Don't you know that's where us successful people come from. Can't tell you how many ADAs let me off bc I used slam their sister back in the day. I mean, if you have money and know someone... You can't even get in trouble in a hick town.

3) School districts, or the gov't in general, doesn't need your permission to teach you kids about reproductive health, homosexuality or any political persuasion you don't practice at home. It's not like you know what's best for your kids anyways... Right? Those "average" sociological ideals should be forced on them. How could they possibly decide on their own??

4) Your kid is too slow. We're not going to pay for remedial education with tax dollars anymore. If they can't make the grade, the parents will be fined monetarily until they meet minimum ed requirements. If they do not, they will be incarcerated in the juvenile programs of your state. They won't be an asset to society due their lack of intelligence anyways.


(don't necessarily believe in all of those there, except 1... homeschoolers make terrible employees. They always wanna quit and get a hug. But, I think some see the point... ) If you claim that your beliefs allow for the imposition of your reproductive-ideals on others, then others' ideals are fair game to be imposed upon your non-aborts.

((before you get too enthralled in your responses, i really don't care that much... ))

I'm just going to respond to the part I bolded as this is something I think gets glossed over. Sure it's about freedom of choice for the woman, but what about the man that was involved as well? He does not have any authority in the decision either way. If the woman chooses to keep the baby over his objections he is forced to financially support the mother and child until the child reaches adulthood. If the woman chooses abortion over the father's objections he has no way to seek damages for not having a child to raise. There is a disparity in the decision making process that is backed up by the weight of government.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

SNIP

I'm pretty pro-abortion in general. So, I'm not going to start another debate of who/why is anyone going to hell or wherever your flying spaghetti monster sends people you don't find moral unity with.

What about the concept of individual liberties? Or US Constitutional rights for citizens? Would you support those?

The US Constitution and the Declaration are pretty straightforward on this issue - they state that the right to life is inalienable (declaration) and that all people have equal protection under the law against the state depriving them of life, liberty or property (14th Amendment).

If so, why support a practice that denies a fundamental Constitutional right to life? Isn't that a bit like the US SCOTUS supporting slavery in the Dredd Scott case?

Not talking about FSM or any of that shit, either.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by CarolinaGuy

Unfortunately, these juries have been wrong hundreds of times, as DNA evidence later confirmed after the execution.

Nothing civil about that.

Perhaps not.

However, the criminal does get a trial by jury, along with practically endless appeals.

And the execution does not involve dismemberment.

[Adam-12]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

So, by the standards of the pro-lifers' "Brady Bunch", the so-called human life that may be formed at conception is more the property of, and choice to be furthered by, their moral high-ground than those who create it?

No, to a pro-lifer it isn't property at all. Your analogy to child-rearing is silly: pro-lifers, who tend to be religious and conservative, naturally believe that child-rearing is the parents' business--but they unanimously support laws against killing babies, toddlers, kids, preteens and teenagers, just as much as they support laws against killing the unborn. For your analogy to make any sense, you'd have to claim that killing your toddler is a matter of parental discretion.

You don't have to agree with them, but honesty should compel you not to misrepresent their position. Their position is that killing a fetus is murder exactly as would be killing it after its birth. Most pro-abortion people seem to find that compelling, at least in the case of a full-term fetus aborted the day before its due date, that they resort to vitriol and misdirection. Many other pro-abortion types draw the line at viability for exactly this reason.

There are more than the two media-hyped positions, by the way. Walter Block suggests a consistent libertarian approach. Namely, he suggests that the woman's uterus be treated as her property, but that the fetus be treated as having full human rights. As such, the woman has every right to evict the fetus from her uterus, but no right to murder it. He then applies the same legal reasoning as would apply to eviction: if death is an accident of eviction, it's not murder. If it was avoidable, it's murder. Therefore, if the woman insists on evicting a viable fetus, she must do so in such a way as to minimize the risk of death, and must allow someone else to adopt it.

His argument is probably repugnant to both sides of the standard debate, but it's clear that his ethics is at least better than the pro-choicers by a simple thought experiment. Suppose that abortions were done using 23rd-century technology that teleported the fetus out of the uterus and onto the operating table unharmed. Now that the woman has nothing inside her, and her womb is intact, empty and unharmed, the doctor asks, "So, what shall we do with this living thing which is capable of surviving outside you, that many people would be eager to care for and support at no cost or obligation to yourself?" It seems abundantly obvious that if she said, "Nah, just kill it and throw it away," there's something seriously wrong with that. If you don't see a problem with that, then I can't imagine how you could possibly object to killing newborns, either.

[Tootie]

Originally Posted by adymond

I'm just going to respond to the part I bolded as this is something I think gets glossed over. Sure it's about freedom of choice for the woman, but what about the man that was involved as well? He does not have any authority in the decision either way. If the woman chooses to keep the baby over his objections he is forced to financially support the mother and child until the child reaches adulthood. If the woman chooses abortion over the father's objections he has no way to seek damages for not having a child to raise. There is a disparity in the decision making process that is backed up by the weight of government.

See this is one thing we can definitely agree with. I think the male half should have a major say in what happens. If he wants it and she doesn't to bad for her, she should have taken extra precautions to prevent it. He can have full custody after the birth takes place.

Also, if she wants it and he doesn't then she should sigh a waiver releasing him of any obligation of care.

Originally Posted by kunsunoke

What about the concept of individual liberties? Or US Constitutional rights for citizens? Would you support those?

The US Constitution and the Declaration are pretty straightforward on this issue - they state that the right to life is inalienable (declaration) and that all people have equal protection under the law against the state depriving them of life, liberty or property (14th Amendment).

If so, why support a practice that denies a fundamental Constitutional right to life? Isn't that a bit like the US SCOTUS supporting slavery in the Dredd Scott case?

Not talking about FSM or any of that shit, either.

Yes but the constitution applies to persons "born" here or became a citizen of here.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by Tootie

(SNIP)
Yes but the constitution applies to persons "born" here or became a citizen of here.

When does human life begin?

[Tootie]

Originally Posted by kunsunoke

When does human life begin?

Doesn't matter. What matters is the being born part if someone is going to use the constitution as giving someone a right and that right goes to the woman before any birth.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It doesn't say anything about people visiting here or pre-born. They do not have the same protections that are given to citizens of the USA.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Tootie

See this is one thing we can definitely agree with. I think the male half should have a major say in what happens. If he wants it and she doesn't to bad for her, she should have taken extra precautions to prevent it. He can have full custody after the birth takes place.

Also, if she wants it and he doesn't then she should sigh a waiver releasing him of any obligation of care.

That's what I think should be in place. Some sort of legally binding contract that states if the man wants the child and the woman does not he will support her while she is carrying the baby financially (her job would be protected so long as she was able to preform her duties and meet the FMLA standards for time off) and should she suffer financially due to the pregnancy the man would maintain some sort of financial support for a period of time. He would then retain sole custody. Now to prevent some sort of vindictive dick from doing this just to cause problems for the mother, should they neglect the child or be found an unfit parent they face steep fines and some sort of punishment.

The flip side would be if the mother wants the child and the father does not she signs a waiver releasing the man from any financial burden. The man also has ZERO parental rights.

[kunsunoke]

Originally Posted by Tootie

Doesn't matter.

That's like saying that African slaves actually being people didn't matter - because they were property, after all.

That was tried before, but it ultimately didn't hold water over time, because the US Constitution and Declaration say what they say. And all states had to give up the "peculiar institution".

What matters is the being born part

So, in your opinion, birth is what counts as the dividing line between human and non-viable tissue, right?

Doesn't that contradict our current laws against partial birth abortion, though, which were recently upheld by the SCOTUS?

By the way, would that be for a full-term birth only? And what happens when babies are born prematurely? Does that make them non-humans in your view?

What happens when babies are accidentally born after a botched late-term abortion? Does that make them humans in your view?

And what do we make of Roe v. Wade, where the SCOTUS decided (FSM only knows why) that there were lines of demarcation?

if someone is going to use the constitution as giving someone a right and that right goes to the woman before any birth.

Where in the US Constitution is the right to abortion specifically guaranteed?

[Roland of Gilead]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

So, by the standards of the pro-lifers' "Brady Bunch", the so-called human life that may be formed at conception is more the property of, and choice to be furthered by, their moral high-ground than those who create it?

Originally Posted by adymond

I'm just going to respond to the part I bolded as this is something I think gets glossed over.

Here's what gets glossed over: It's not simply a couple people boinking one night and zip, there's a baby. There's a 3rd party involved, and He gets to create the part that's a pretty essential component of a human being.

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

((before you get too enthralled in your responses, i really don't care that much... ))

Hmm . . .